Imperialism 

and 

The  Mandates  System 


by 


HUNTINGTON  GILCHRIST 

Assistant  Director,  Mandates  Section, 
League  of  Nations  Secretariat 


Published  for 

THE  LEAGUE  OF  NATIONS 
NON-PARTISAN  ASSOCIATION,  Inc. 

6 East  39th  Street,  New  York 
By  the  MARGARET  C.  PEABODY  Fund 


March,  1928. 


This  paper  <was  presented  by  Mr. 
Gilchrist  before  a meeting  of  the 
Geneva  Institute  of  International  Re- 
lations, held  in  the  Glass  Room  of  the 
Secretariat  of  the  League  of  Nations  on 
August  11,  1927,  under  the  chairman- 
ship of  the  Hon.  Theodore  Marburg. 

Mr.  Gilchrist  is  a native  of  Boston. 
Mass.  He  has  received  degrees  from 
IVilliams  College,  Harvard  University 
and  Columbia  University.  He  is  a 
vjell  known  author  and  lecturer  on  in- 
ternational questions.  From  1913  to 
1914  he  was  an  instructor  in  the 
Anglo-Chinese  College  at  Foochow, 
China,  and  the  following  year  he  did 
research  work  for  the  Chinese  and 
Japanese  governments.  During  the 
World  War  Mr.  Gilchrist  served  as 
private,  lieutenant  and  captain  in  the 
United  States  Army.  At  one  time  he 
was  attached  to  the  General  Staff 
Headquarters  in  Washington,  D.  C., 
and  later  to  the  General  Staff  Head- 
quarters, S.O.S.,  A.E.F.  In  1919  he 
became  personal  assistant  to  Raymond 
B.  Fosdick,  who  was  then  Under-Secre- 
tary General  of  the  League  of  Nations. 
Mr.  Gilchrist  is  now  Assistant  Director 
of  the  Mandates  Section  of  the  Secre- 
tariat of  the  League  of  Nations. 


IMPERIALISM  AND 
THE  MANDATES  SYSTEM 


By  Huntington  Gilchrist 

Assistant  Director,  Mandates  Section, 
League  of  Nations  Secretariat 


AS  I read  history,  the  mandates 
system  was  created  very 
largely  as  the  result  of  a reaction 
against  “imperialism,”  a reaction 
which  was  given  added  force  by 
the  idealism  that  was  born  of  the 
war.  It  was  a reaction  against 
those  features  of  that  imperialism 
which,  particularly  during  the 
forty  years  preceding  the  war,  had 
resulted  in  a terrific  struggle  for 
exclusive  national  rights  by  the 
great  Powers  in  the  backward 
regions  of  the  world.  That  strug- 
gle for  exclusive  economic  control 
and  political  domination  meant 
that  nine-tenths  of  the  African 
continent  was  appropriated  by  one 
or  other  of  the  European  Powers 
in  the  forty  years  from  1875  on- 
wards. 

Although  to  many  the  word 
“imperialism”  may  have  an  ob- 
jectionable sound,  as  meaning  the 
exclusive  exploitation  of  raw  ma- 
terials for  the  benefit  of  certain 
countries  alone  and  the  right  to 
impose  preferential  tariffs  in  the 

[3] 


interests  of  the  occupying  Power 
rather  than  the  natives,  there  is 
another  aspect  of  it  which  we 
must  not  lose  sight  of.  Besides 
such  features  as  these  which  have 
been  branded  as  objectionable  in 
many  quarters,  there  were,  of 
course,  civilizing  influences  which 
accompanied  the  extension  of  Eu- 
ropean political  power.  Law  and 
order  was  established.  That 
meant  the  end  of  inter-tribal  fight- 
ing and  gradually  resulted  in 
the  break-up  of  the  slave  trade. 
The  firmer  establishment  of  Eu- 
ropean rule  aided  the  extension 
of  missionary  work  and  the  be- 
ginnings of  western  education, 
sanitation  and  public  health  work. 
It  seems  fair  to  say  that  the  man- 
dates system  was  formed  to  con- 
serve the  beneficial  effects  of  the 
imperialist  movement  and  to  do 
away  with  its  objectionable  fea- 
tures, or  at  least  to  minimize  some 
of  them,  for  the  mandates  system 
was,  of  course,  a compromise  be- 
tween idealists  and  imperialists, 
and  was  not  the  result  of  a com- 
plete victory  by  the  former.  Be- 
fore attempting,  however,  to 
analyze  this  mandates  system  to 
see  to  what  extent  it  has  attained 
the  objects  sought  by  its  found- 
ers, I should  perhaps  briefly  out- 
line it  and  show  how  it  operates. 

The  Operation  of  the  System 

The  mandated  territories  are 
those  fourteen  different  areas 


[4] 


which  formerly  belonged  to  Ger- 
many in  the  Pacific  and  in  Africa, 
or  comprised  the  former  Arab 
Provinces  of  Turkey  in  the  Near 
East.  The  mandates  were  allot- 
ted, not  by  the  League  of  Nations 
but  by  the  Principal  Allied  and 
Associated  Powers,  to  certain  of 
the  countries  which  were  on  the 
Allied  side  during  the  war — Bel- 
gium, Great  Britain,  France, 
South  Africa,  Australia,  New  Zea- 
land and  Japan.  These  Powers 
are  called  the  Mandatory  Powers 
and  they  govern  under  a general 
responsibility  to  the  League  of 
Nations  and  in  accordance  with  a 
definite  mandate  or  conventional 
arrangement  prescribing  the  way 
in  which  the  territory  is  to  be  ad- 
ministered. 

In  Equatorial  Africa,  Tangan- 
yika Territory  (formerly  German 
East  Africa)  was  allotted  mainly 
to  Great  Britain,  a small  corner  in 
the  northwest  going  to  Belgium. 
The  main  part  of  the  former  Ger- 
man Cameroons  went  to  France, 
with  a little  strip  to  Great  Britain. 
Togoland  was  divided  between 
Great  Britain  and  France.  These 
are  known  as  “B”  Mandates. 

South  West  Africa  and  the 
islands  in  the  Pacific  formerly  be- 
longing to  Germany  are  “C” 
Mandates.  South  - West  Africa 
was  assigned  to  the  Union  of 
South  Africa.  Samoa  went  to 
New  Zealand  and  New  Guinea  to 
Australia ; the  little  island  of 
Nauru  went  to  the  British  Em- 


[5] 


pire,  and  all  the  former  German 
islands  north  of  the  equator — 700 
of  them  in  all,  many  of  them  un- 
inhabited— went  to  Japan.  As  to 
the  “A”  Mandates,  Syria  was  al- 
lotted to  France  and  Palestine  to 
Great  Britain,  while  Iraq  has  by 
a special  treaty  arrangement  with 
Great  Britain,  which  has  been 
sanctioned  by  the  League,  been 
already  recognized  as  to  a large 
extent  self-governing,  although  it 
remains  subject  to  the  guidance 
of  British  advisers  on  important 
matters  as  well  as  to  League 
supervision. 

These  fourteen  different  terri- 
tories are  governed  in  accordance 
with  a definite  “mandate”  or  char- 
ter laid  down  separately  in  the 
case  of  each  territory,  all  the  man- 
dates in  each  category,  however, 
being  similar  one  to  the  other. 
The  “A”  and  “B”  mandates  pro- 
vide, inter  alia,  for  equal  treat- 
ment for  the  commerce  of  all  na- 
tions Members  of  the  League,  and 
the  “B”  and  “C”  categories  con- 
tain a series  of  stipulations  to 
protect  the  natives,  among  other 
things,  against  slavery,  the  liquor 
traffic  and  the  use  of  forced  labor, 
except  for  essential  public  works 
and  services  and  then  only  in  re- 
turn for  adequate  remuneration. 

A third  group  of  provisions 
found  in  all  the  mandates,  and 
perhaps  they  are  the  most  impor- 
tant of  all,  stipulate  that  each 
mandatory  power  must  submit  an- 
nually to  the  League  a report  on 
[6] 


the  way  in  which  the  administra- 
tion of  each  territory  has  been 
conducted  during  the  previous 
year.  In  accordance  with  the 
Covenant  these  annual  reports  are 
sent  for  examination  to  the  Per- 
manent Mandates  Commission  of 
the  League. 

The  Permanent  Mandates  Com- 
mission is  composed  of  ten*  colo- 
nial experts,  acting  as  individuals 
not  as  government  representa- 
tives, and  of  whom  only  four  are 
nationals  of  States  which  have 
mandates.  It  includes  a formid- 
able group  of  colonial  administra- 
tors who  have  continuously 
elected  as  their  chairman,  the 
Marquis  Theodoli,  formerly  Un- 
der-Secretary of  State  for  the 
Colonies  in  Italy.  Among  its 
members,  for  instance,  are  Sir 
Frederick  Lugard,  former  Gov- 
ernor of  Nigeria  and  later  Gov- 
ernor-General of  Hong  Kong, 
and  M.  Martial  Merlin,  former 
Governor-General  of  several  of  the 
largest  French  colonies  in  Africa 
and  the  Far  East.  Other  mem- 
bers are  Professor  Rappard,  Rec- 
tor of  the  University  of  Geneva, 
who,  though  not  having  had  direct 
colonial  experience  himself,  was 
Director  of  the  Mandates  Section 
of  the  Secretariat  for  the  first 
four  years;  and  Madame  Wick- 
sell,  of  Sweden,  who  takes  par- 
ticular interest  in  questions  con- 

* Increased  to  eleven  by  the  addition  in  September, 
1927,  of  a member  of  German  nationality  who  is  Dr. 
Ludwig  Kastl,  formerly  Treasurer  of  South  West 
Africa  and  now  Director  of  the  National  Federation  of 
German  Industries. 


[7] 


cerning  the  education  and  social 
welfare  of  the  natives.  Mr.  Van 
Rees,  from  the  Netherlands,  a 
former  high  official  in  the  Dutch 
East  Indies,  is  also  on  the  Com- 
mission, together  with  General 
Freire  d’Andrade,  perhaps  the 
most  distinguished  of  Portuguese 
colonial  authorities,  M.  Orts  of 
Belgium,  who  has  had  long  ex- 
perience in  official  and  business 
circles  connected  with  African  af- 
fairs, M.  Palacios,  Professor  of 
Law  and  Political  Economy  at  the 
University  of  Madrid,  and  M. 
Yamanaka,  formerly  in  the  Jap- 
anese diplomatic  service.  Profes- 
sor Rappard  was  succeeded  as  sec- 
retary of  the  Commission  by  M. 
Catastini,  who  had  held  important 
positions  in  the  Ministry  of  the 
Colonies  in  Italy.  The  Commis- 
sion sits  twice  a year,  each  ses- 
sion lasting  two  or  three  weeks. 
It  does  not  simply  take  the  annual 
reports  of  the  Mandatory  Powers 
as  printed  and  discuss  them  pri- 
vately; it  examines  them  in  the 
presence  of  a representative  of  the 
Mandatory  Power,  who  is  sent  to 
give  such  additional  information 
as  may  be  required.  For  instance, 
during  the  last  session  the  Com- 
mission questioned  Sir  Donald 
Cameron,  the  Governor  of  Tan- 
ganyika, in  order  to  gain  a more 
definite  insight  into  the  principles 
and  views  of  the  administrator  on 
the  spot  with  regard  to  the  way  in 
which  the  largest  of  the  African 
mandated  territories  is  being  gov- 
[8] 


erned.  This  cross-examination  of 
the  accredited  representative  of 
the  Mandatory  Power  is  set  forth 
in  full  in  the  minutes  of  the  Per- 
manent Mandates  Commission, 
which  give  almost  a verbatim  ac- 
count of  the  proceedings  and 
which  are  available  for  students 
who  may  wish  to  examine  in  de- 
tail the  work  done  to  carry  out 
the  provisions  of  Article  22  of  the 
Covenant  in  so  far  as  the  Com- 
mission is  concerned. 

When  that  examination  is  over 
and  the  representative  of  the  Man- 
datory Power  has  withdrawn,  the 
Commission  discusses  its  conclu- 
sions with  regard  to  the  adminis- 
tration of  the  territory  in  question 
and  draws  up  a report  which  is 
sent  to  the  Council  of  the  League, 
the  accredited  representative  be- 
ing given  an  opportunity  to  com- 
ment on  it.  The  Report  on  the 
Work  of  the  Eleventh  Session  of 
the  Commission — the  latest — was 
released  to  the  press  a few  days 
ago,  and  I will  have  occasion  in  a 
moment  to  refer  by  way  of  illus- 
tration to  certain  interesting  pas- 
sages which  it  contains.  This  Re- 
port will  go  before  the  Council 
for  consideration  when  it  meets 
in  September  next.  The  Council 
normally  passes  on  the  observa- 
tions made  by  the  Commission  to 
the  Mandatory  Powers  con- 
cerned, asking  them  to  take  the 
requisite  action  to  fulfil  the  rec- 
ommendations o r suggestions 
made  by  the  Commission  or  to 
[9] 


explain  why  it  may  not  be  con- 
sidered possible  to  do  so. 

The  work  of  the  League  with 
regard  to  the  execution  of  Article 
22  does  not  end,  however,  with 
this  formal  routine  action  on  the 
part  of  the  Council  or  with  the 
replies  eventually  made  by  the 
Mandatory  Powers.  The  Assem- 
bly each  year  discusses  in  its  poli- 
tical committee — the  Sixth  Com- 
mittee— the  work  done  during 
the  year  by  the  Mandatory  Pow- 
ers, the  Council  and  the  Perma- 
nent Mandates  Commission  to 
carry  out  Article  22,  and  so  the 
whole  question  is  put  before  that 
forum  of  public  opinion  which  the 
Assembly  constitutes. 

“Sovereignty”  Replaced  by 
“Trusteeship” 

This,  in  brief,  is  the  mandate 
system,  and  it  may  now  be  inter- 
esting to  see  how,  both  in  theory 
and  in  practice,  it  affects  those  fea- 
tures of  the  old  imperialism 
against  which  objections  had  been 
raised.  One  of  the  so-called  evils 
of  imperialism  was  the  insistence 
of  the  great  Powers  in  securing 
full  sovereignty,  exclusive  politi- 
cal rights,  in  the  different  terri- 
tories under  their  control.  That 
led  to  a great  deal  of  diplomatic 
intrigue  between  the  various  cap- 
itals of  Europe  and  this  sometimes 
involved  danger  of  war.  When  a 
Power  possesses  exclusive  sover- 
eignty over  a territory  there  is  al- 

[10] 


most  inevitably  a great  risk  that 
in  the  last  resort  any  decision  with 
regard  to  the  administration  of 
that  territory  must  depend  on  the 
interests  of  the  Power  in  question 
rather  than  on  those  of  the  native 
inhabitants  of  the  territory. 

Under  the  mandates  system  has 
the  situation  been  changed?  Ex- 
clusive sovereign  rights  have  cer- 
tainly been  replaced  by  trustee- 
ship, a system  under  which  the 
final  decision  on  any  problem  con- 
cerning the  administration  of 
these  territories  should  be  deter- 
mined by  the  interests  of  the  na- 
tives rather  than  by  those  of  the 
Governing  Power.  It  is  occasion- 
ally said,  however,  that  while  on 
the  surface  there  may  be  a differ- 
ence, in  that  the  word  trusteeship 
replaces  the  word  sovereignty, 
this  is  simply  camouflage,  and  that 
as  a matter  of  fact  these  mandated 
territories  have  been  practically 
annexed  by  the  great  European 
Powers,  and  that  there  is  only  a 
formal  difference  between  the 
new  system  and  the  old.  On  that 
point  I would  refer  you  to  the 
report  of  the  recent  session  of 
the  Commission. 

One  of  the  most  interesting 
questions  which  arose  at  that 
time,  and  which  had  also  been 
dealt  with  at  the  previous  session, 
was  with  regard  to  the  question 
of  sovereignty  in  so  far  as  it  af- 
fects the  territory  of  South-West 
Africa,  which  is  under  the  man- 
date of  the  Union  of  South  Africa. 


[11] 


The  Union  of  South  Africa,  about 
a year  ago,  negotiated  a treaty 
with  Portugal,  which  governs  An- 
gola, the  territory  just  north  of 
South  West  Africa,  to  settle  fin- 
ally the  frontier  between  the  two 
territories.  In  the  preamble  to 
that  treaty  it  was  stated  that  un- 
der the  mandate  the  Government 
of  the  Union  of  South  Africa,  sub- 
ject to  the  terms  of  the  mandate, 
possessed  sovereignty  over  the 
territory  of  South  West  Africa, 
lately  under  the  sovereignty  of 
Germany,  This  phrase  came  to 
the  attention  of  the  Permanent 
Mandates  Commission  and  they 
expressed  doubt  at  their  session 
last  November  as  to  whether  this 
was  the  proper  way  to  define  the 
relationship  between  a Mandatory 
Power  and  the  territory  under  its 
mandate. 

As  the  Council  when  consider- 
ing the  report  of  the  Commission 
in  March  refrained  from  express- 
ing any  opinion  on  this  matter, 
the  Government  of  the  Union  of 
South  Africa  replied  that  it  did 
not  feel  that  it  should  make  any 
statement  on  the  point  either.  At 
its  last  meeting,  however,  the 
Commission  thought  it  necessary 
again  to  bring  the  matter  to  the 
attention  of  the  Council  in  view 
of  its  fundamental  importance, 
and  also  because  the  Prime  Min- 
ister of  the  Union  of  South  Af- 
rica, in  a speech  made  subsequent- 
ly in  the  Union  Parliament,  up- 
held the  text  used  in  this  Treaty. 

[12] 


The  Commission  concluded  by  ex- 
pressing the  hope  that  the  Gov- 
ernment (of  the  Union  of  South 
Africa)  “will  be  so  good  as  to  ex- 
plain whether,  in  its  view,  the 
term  ‘possesses  sovereignty’  ex- 
presses only  the  right  to  exercise 
full  powers  of  administration  and 
legislation  in  the  Territory  of 
South  West  Africa  under  the 
terms  of  the  mandate  and  subject 
to  its  provisions  and  to  those  of 
Article  22  of  the  Covenant,  or 
whether  it  implies  that  the  Gov- 
ernment of  the  Union  regards  it- 
self as  being  sovereign  over  the 
territory  itself.” 

Here  is  a definite  test  case  with 
regard  to  this  important  point,  and 
although  the  question  is  still  in 
process  of  solution  it  shows  very 
clearly  that  the  Permanent  Man- 
dates Commission  considers  the 
difference  between  the  legal  sta- 
tus of  colonies  and  mandated  ter- 
ritories to  be  definite  and  real.* 

In  the  same  connection  it  may 
be  interesting  to  give  another  il- 
lustration. In  the  case  of  certain 
mandated  territories,  for  instance 


* On  September  8th,  1927,  the  Council  adopted 
unanimously,  representatives  of  all  the  Mandatory 
Powers  being  present,  a significant  report  which 
pointed  out  that  the  Covenant  itself,  other  articles  of 
the  Treaty  of  Versailles,  the  mandates,  and  a series 
of  decisions  by  the  Council  on  such  fundamental 
points  as  the  national  status  of  the  inhabitants  of  man- 
dated territories  (who  are  not  nationals  of  the  Man- 
datory Power),  the  legal  position  of  the  former  Ger- 
man State  Domain  in  the  territories  (which  can  only 
he  held  by  the  Mandatory  Powers  in  their  capacity 
as  such)  had  already  solved  this  question  so  far  as 
the  substance  was  concerned,  and  that  any  difficulties 
still  existing  must  be  of  form  only,  perhaps  due  to  the 
use  of  time-honored  terminology  which  was  not  ap- 
propriate to  conditions  new  to  international  law. 


[13} 


French  T o g o 1 a n d and  New 
Guinea,  former  German  govern- 
ment land  in  the  territory  was  re- 
ferred to  in  legislation  as  State 
land  or  Crown  land.  The  Man- 
dates Commission  raised  the  ques- 
tion whether  the  Mandatory 
Powers  considered  that  this  pub- 
lic land  was  owned  by  them  in 
their  own  right  as  sovereign  pow- 
ers or  in  their  capacity  as  Man- 
datories, i.e.,  in  trust  for  the  na- 
tives, and  the  Mandatory  Powers 
agreed  that  the  second  theory  was 
the  correct  one.  The  Mandates 
Commission  then  suggested  that 
as  this  was  the  case  it  would  be 
as  well  to  change  the  text  of  the 
legislation  so  that  in  law  as  well 
as  in  its  interpretation  the  situa- 
tion would  be  perfectly  clear. 

The  following  quotation  from 
the  last  report  of  the  Mandates 
Commission  tells  the  end  of  the 
story  in  the  case  of  French  Togo- 
land : “The  Commission  notes 

with  satisfaction  that  the  Manda- 
tory Power,  by  a Decree  of  March 
13th,  1926,  substituted  the  phrase 
‘domaine  du  territoire  du  Togo’ 
for  that  of  ‘domaine  de  I’Etat,’ 
thus  conforming  with  the  prin- 
ciples of  the  mandate.”  Similar 
changes  in  legislation  have  been 
made  by  the  Australian  Govern- 
ment to  abolish  the  term  “Crown 
land”  for  public  land  in  New 
Guinea  and  to  substitute  the 
phrase  “land  of  the  territory.” 

[14] 


No  National  Privileges  in  Trade  and 
Commerce 

The  second  point  which  it  is  of 
interest  to  mention  by  way  of  il- 
lustrating- the  effect  of  the  man- 
dates system  on  the  objections 
raised  against  imperialism  is  with 
regard  to  the  preferential  tariff 
system  which  was  imposed,  at 
least  in  many  colonial  areas,  by 
the  Powers  in  order  to  provide  a 
surer  market  for  their  surplus 
manufactured  goods.  I have  al- 
ready alluded  to  the  fact  that  ex- 
cept in  the  case  of  the  “C”  Man- 
dates an  open  door  in  the  sense 
of  equal  economic  opportunity  is 
provided  for;  the  mandates  re- 
quire, for  instance,  that  there  shall 
be  no  discrimination  which  will 
make  it  more  difficult  for  Ameri- 
can, Danish  or  Bulgarian  goods 
to  enter  the  Cameroons  or  Togo- 
land  in  W est  Africa  than  for  Brit- 
ish or  French  goods. 

How  has  that  worked  in  prac- 
tice? So  well,  that  the  Mandates 
Commission  has  had  practically 
no  occasion  to  call  attention  even 
to  a possible  violation  of  this  stip- 
ulation. In  one  or  two  cases 
there  have  been  legislative  texts 
which  did  not  appear  to  be  abso- 
lutely in  conformity  with  this 
principle,  but  the  Mandatory 
Power  was  able  to  explain  that 
in  each  case  the  principle  was  in 
fact  being  observed,  or  that  the 
practice  would  be  made  to  con- 
form at  once  to  this  requirement. 

[IS] 


But  although  this  is  the  case,  the 
Mandates  Commission  pays  scrup- 
ulous attention  to  any  action  tak- 
en by  the  Mandatory  Powers 
which  may  affect  important  prin- 
ciples of  this  kind,  as  the  follow- 
ing extract  from  the  last  report 
of  the  Commission  on  French  To- 
goland  well  illustrates : “The  Com- 
mission notes  that  refunds  of  cus- 
toms duties,  insurance,  wharfage, 
etc.,  have  been  made  to  two 
French  companies.”  (That  looked 
like  a special  privilege  for  French 
business.)  “The  accredited  rep- 
resentative explained  to  the  satis- 
faction of  the  Commission  that 
these  are  not  purely  commercial 
undertakings,  but  companies  en- 
gaged in  experiments  of  public 
importance.” 

The  Protection  of  the  Native  Against 

the  Dangers  of  Industrialization 

A third  reproach  often  levelled 
against  imperialism  is  that  it  has 
brought  about  the  too  rapid  in- 
dustrialization of  native  life.  Na- 
tives are,  it  is  said,  made  to  work 
in  the  mines  to  their  physical 
detriment;  industries  are  built  up 
for  the  enrichment  of  the  Whites 
at  the  expense  of  the  Blacks  in 
Africa.  How  has  the  mandates 
system  dealt  with  that  prob- 
lem? 

As  has  already  been  stated,  all 
the  “B”  and  “C”  mandates  pro- 
vide definite  regulations  against 
the  use  of  forced  labor  except  for 

[16] 


essential  public  works  and  ser- 
vices, and  then  only  when  ade- 
quately paid.  It  was  realized 
from  the  beginning  that  this  phase 
of  the  work  of  the  Commission 
was  one  of  the  most  important 
and  difficult,  and  one  which  was 
bound  to  grow  as  time  went  on. 
When  the  Commission  was  con- 
stituted, therefore,  it  was  provid- 
ed that  there  should  sit  on  it  a 
representative  of  the  Internation- 
al Labor  Office  as  an  expert  on 
labor  questions,  and  in  conse- 
quence it  has  had  the  benefit  of 
the  collaboration  of  Mr.  H.  A. 
Grimshaw,  of  the  Labor  Office, 
for  several  years. 

If  you  look  through  the  reports 
of  the  Commission  to  the  Council 
you  will  find  that  from  the  very 
start,  and  more  particularly  in  re- 
cent years,  there  is  no  other  sub- 
ject dealt  with  so  frequently  and 
fully  as  labor  — not  only  forced 
labor  but  conditions  of  labor  in 
general.  An  endeavor  is  made 
to  see  that  everything  possible  is 
done  to  prevent  there  being  any 
justification  in  the  charge  that  in- 
dustrialization is  being  pressed  too 
rapidly  in  mandated  territories.  I 
do  not  mean  to  imply  that  there 
are  no  abuses  in  mandated  terri- 
tories, but  I wish  to  call  attention 
to  the  special  efforts  made  by  the 
Mandates  Commission  to  deal 
with  this  particular  problem. 

Take,  for  instance,  a few  lines 
from  the  Report  of  the  Commis- 
sion on  the  administration  of  the 


[17] 


French  Cameroons  for  1925 : 

. . the  Commission  will  fol- 

low with  interest  the  application 
of  the  measures  which  it  is  pro- 
posed to  take  to  improve  the  san- 
itary conditions  among-  the  la- 
borers working  on  the  construc- 
tion of  the  central  railway.  . . 
and  the  following  concerning 
French  Togoland  for  the  same 
year:  . the  Commission 

notes  with  satisfaction  the  decla- 
ration of  the  accredited  represen- 
tative, that  the  Administration 
has  no  intention  of  requisitioning 
labor  for  the  construction,  dur- 
ing the  next  three  years,  of  the 
90  kilometres  of  railroad  from 
Agbonou  to  Agbandi,”  and  also 
in  the  following  year  such  com- 
ment as  this  with  reference  to 
Tanganyika:  . the  Com- 

mission also  notes  that  the  Gov- 
ernor is  arranging  gradually  to 
replace  porterage  by  motor-trans- 
port.” 

You  will  find  many  other  para- 
graphs dealing  with  the  labor 
problem  throughout  this  report, 
in  particular  among  the  observa- 
tions on  the  little  island  of  Nauru. 
There  the  Commission  raises  the 
question  as  to  whether  the  Brit- 
ish Government  might  not  be  able 
to  provide  more  adequate  compen- 
sation for  the  Chinese  workers 
imported  to  dig  phosphate  who 
are  declared  medically  unfit  for 
further  work  and  are  repatriated 
to  China. 

The  Commission  has,  however, 
[18] 


not  confined  itself  to  dealing  with 
separate  concrete  cases  which  may 
have  come  to  its  attention,  but  at 
its  6th  Session  discussed  at  some 
length  the  general  question  of  the 
necessity  of  maintaining  a just 
proportion  between  the  rate  at 
which  the  economic  equipment 
and  development  of  the  mandated 
territories  should  be  proceeded 
with,  and  the  amount  of  work 
which  might  reasonably  be  re- 
quired from  the  native  popula- 
tion. In  consequence  of  this  dis- 
cussion, the  Commission  inserted 
in  the  list  of  questions  drafted  for 
the  use  of  the  Mandated  Powers 
in  preparing  their  annual  reports, 
the  following  far-reaching  and 
important  question: 

“Does  the  local  supply  of 
labor,  in  quantity,  physical 
powers  of  resistance  and  ap- 
titude for  industrial  and  agri- 
cultural work  conducted  on 
modern  lines  appear  to  indi- 
cate that  it  is  adequate,  as  far 
as  can  be  foreseen,  for  the 
economic  development  of  the 
territory? 

“Or  does  the  Government 
consider  it  possible  that  soon- 
er or  later  a proper  care  for 
the  preservation  and  devel- 
opment . of  the  native  races 
may  make  it  necessary  to  re- 
strict for  a time  the  establish- 
ment of  new  enterprises  or 
the  extension  of  existing  en- 
terprises and  to  spread  over 

[19] 


a longer  term  of  years  the 
execution  of  such  large  pub- 
lic works  as  are  not  of  im- 
mediate and  urgent  neces- 
sity?” 

This  is  perhaps  the  best  indica- 
tion which  can  be  given  of  the 
thorough  and  far-seeing  charac- 
ter of  the  work  done  by  the  Com- 
mission on  this  important  subject. 

International  Inquiry  into  Charges 
of  Mal-Administration 

The  fourth  point  which  I think 
it  would  be  interesting  to  deal 
with  in  this  connection  concerns 
the  charge  made  against  imperial- 
ism of  arbitrary  and  abusive 
treatment  of  the  natives  by  offi- 
cials of  the  Administration  itself. 
We  remember  what  was  said 
about  the  Congo  in  the  early  days 
before  it  had  come  under  the  con- 
trol of  the  Belgian  Government 
and  was  still  under  the  personal 
jurisdiction  of  the  King  of  the 
Belgians.  Although  the  “B”  and 
“C”  Mandates  do  not  deal  in  any 
detailed  way  with  this  particular 
problem,  they  do  stipulate  that  the 
Mandatory  Power  shall  promote 
to  the  utmost  the  material  and 
moral  well-being  and  the  social 
progress  of  the  inhabitants,  and 
Article  22  of  the  Covenant  lays 
down  as  the  cardinal  principle  of 
the  whole  system  that  the  well- 
being and  development  of  those 
peoples  who  are  not  yet  able  to 
stand  by  themselves  under  the 
[20] 


strenuous  conditions  of  the  mod- 
ern world  shall  form  a sacred 
trust  of  civilization. 

We  have  had  two  outstanding 
cases  where  abusive  and  arbitrary 
treatment  of  natives  in  mandated 
territories  has  been  alleged.  The 
first  case  was  that  of  the  so-called 
Bondelzwarts  rebellion  in  South 
West  Africa  in  1922,  where  ma- 
chine guns  had  been  used  by  the 
police  and  military  forces  of  the 
Union  of  South  Africa  against 
unarmed  natives  who  had  object- 
ed to  paying  certain  new  taxes. 
The  delegate  from  the  Union  at 
the  next  Assembly  announced 
that  his  government  had  decided 
to  make  a special  inquiry  on  the 
spot,  the  delegate  from  Haiti  in- 
sisted on  the  importance  of  the 
matter,  and  the  Assembly  itself 
pointed  out  the  necessity  of  prop- 
er action  in  the  way  of  inquiry 
and  relief. 

The  report  of  the  special  Com- 
mission of  Inquiry  was  laid  be- 
fore the  Mandates  Commission  by 
the  Administrator  of  the  territory 
who  had  been  sent  all  the  way  to 
Geneva  by  the  Mandatory  Power. 
The  Commission  went  in  great  de- 
tail into  the  whole  situation,  ex- 
pressed their  views  quite  frankly 
on  the  action  of  the  agents  of  the 
Mandatory  Power  and  paid  con- 
siderable attention  to  the  steps 
which  had  been  taken  to  alleviate 
the  situation  of  those  natives  who 
had  suffered. 

The  other  case,  which  is  doubt- 
[21] 


less  more  familiar  to  you,  is  that 
of  Syria.  That  is  a most  instruc- 
tive story  from  the  point  of  view 
of  the  operation  of  the  mandates 
system.  You  will  remember  that 
the  people  called  the  Druses  were 
never  fully  conquered  even  under 
the  Turkish  regime  and  were  dis- 
satisfied with  the  way  in  which 
they  were  treated  by  some  of  the 
higher  French  officials  early  in 
1925.  They  started  a rebellion  and 
were  fortunate  enough  to  over- 
come the  first  French  force  sent 
against  them.  The  rebellion 
thereupon  spread  to  Damascus, 
the  seat  of  the  Arab  national 
movement  in  Syria,  where  the 
Arabs  had  never  been  very  friend- 
ly to  the  French  administration. 
The  rebellion  started  in  July,  and 
when  the  Mandates  Commission 
met  in  Geneva  in  October  it  was 
not  clear  exactly  how  serious  the 
situation  was,  but  it  was  evident 
that  the  Mandates  Commission 
would  have  to  deal  in  an  espe- 
cially thorough  manner  with  the 
whole  problem.  The  French  Gov- 
ernment submitted  a report  for 
the  year  1924,  but  the  rebellion 
was  taking  place  in  1925.  The 
Commission  therefore  considered 
it  could  not  spend  its  time  exam- 
ining a routine  report  for  the  pre- 
vious year  at  a time  when  a revo- 
lution was  taking  place  in  the 
country  concerned.  They  there- 
fore asked  the  French  representa- 
tive whether  his  Government 
would  supply  a report  on  recent 
[22] 


events  at  the  earliest  possible 
moment.  The  French  represen- 
tative replied  that  he  was  sure  his 
Government  would  be  glad  to  do 
so,  and  the  Commission  there- 
fore arranged  to  hold  an  ex- 
traordinary session  four  months 
later,  in  February,  1926,  in  order 
to  examine  this  special  report  on 
the  situation  in  Syria, 

When  the  special  report  came 
in  conditions  had  improved  but 
little,  if  at  all.  The  French  Gov- 
ernment sent  their  accredited  rep- 
resentative, M.  de  Caix,  a former 
Acting  High  Commissioner  in 
Syria,  to  lay  the  report  before  the 
Commission  and  give  supplemen- 
tary information.  The  Commis- 
sion met  in  Rome  and  devoted 
three  weeks  to  Syria  alone  al- 
though as  a rule  it  would  examine 
the  reports  on  seven  or  eight  dif- 
ferent territories  in  that  time.  M, 
de  Caix  was  questioned  for  two 
weeks,  morning  and  afternoon,  and 
the  Commission  went  thoroughly 
into  all  phases  of  the  administra- 
tion of  the  territory  and  into  the 
causes  of  and  possible  remedies 
for  the  rebellion  there. 

The  Commission’s  report  to 
the  Council  was  then  drawn  up. 
It  was  a highly  critical  document, 
as  might  have  been  expected,  but 
no  one  considered  that  this  was 
an  unfriendly  act  toward  France, 
for  it  was  recognized  that  the 
Commission  was  simply  fulfilling 
its  duty,  and  in  this  connection  it 
is  important  to  remember  that  no- 

[23] 


where  had  there  been  more  criti- 
cism of  French  administration  in 
Syria  than  in  the  French  Parlia- 
ment itself,  and  that  the  report 
was  adopted  unanimously  by  the 
Commission  on  which  a member 
of  French  nationality  was  sitting. 
At  the  same  time  the  Commission 
set  forth  in  detail  their  reasons 
for  recognizing  that  the  difficul- 
ties facing  the  French  administra- 
tion in  Syria  were  very  great.  The 
population,  particularly  on  ac- 
count of  religious  divisions,  pre- 
sented a highly  involved  problem 
and  once  the  rebellion  had  broken 
out  it  was  realized  that  there  were 
sound  excuses  for  the  taking  of 
forcible  measures.  The  report 
also  made  certain  suggestions  and 
recommendations  as  to  the  action 
which  might  be  taken  to  improve 
the  situation.  It  came  before  the 
Council  in  March,  1926,  and  M. 
Paul-Boncour,  representing  the 
French  Government  on  the  Coun- 
cil, immediately  said  in  the  most 
sportsmanlike  way  that  he  accep- 
ted the  report. 

This  document,  like  other  re- 
ports of  the  Commission,  con- 
tained certain  requests  for  further 
information  from  the  Mandatory 
Power,  and  when  the  Commission 
met  again  in  November  last  it  had 
before  it  another  and  final  report 
on  the  situation  in  Syria  in  1926, 
containing  almost  all  the  supple- 
mentary information  asked  for 
and  satisfactory  explanations  on 
many  points  raised  the  previous 

[24] 


February.  On  this  occasion, 
moreover,  it  received  lengthy  re- 
ports of  special,  independent  com- 
missioners who  had  been  sent  out 
by  the  French  Government,  in  ac- 
cordance with  an  announcement 
made  at  the  Rome  meeting  of  the 
Commission,  to  inquire  into  the 
allegations  against  the  Syrian  ad- 
ministration which  were  contained 
in  the  large  number  of  petitions 
received  by  the  Commission  from 
the  committee  in  Cairo,  Egypt, 
which  stated  the  case  for  the  rev- 
olutionary element  in  Syria. 

The  Commission  found  both 
then  at  this  November  meeting 
and  during  their  conversations 
with  M.  de  Caix  this  year  that 
many  of  the  recommendations 
made  by  the  Commission  in  Feb- 
ruary, 1926,  had  already  been  car- 
ried out  by  the  Mandatory  Power. 
It  appeared,  for  instance,  that 
much  of  the  trouble  in  Syria  was 
due  to  the  fact  that  the  local  cur- 
rency had  been  linked  to  the 
French  franc  and  had  therefore 
depreciated,  causing  many  eco- 
nomic difficulties.  The  Commis- 
sion suggested  that  it  might  be 
well  to  introduce  a more  stable 
currency,  and  one  which  would 
make  it  easier  to  build  up  auton- 
omy in  financial  and  monetary 
matters.  By  November,  1926,  the 
accredited  representative  of  the 
French  Government  was  able  to 
announce  that  his  Government 
had  taken  definite  steps  in  that 

[25} 


direction  by  establishing-  the  bud- 
gets for  1927  on  a gold  basis. 

The  Commission  also  stressed 
the  necessity  so  far  as  subordinate 
French  officials  were  concerned  of 
following  the  mandate  somewhat 
more  strictly  in  the  sense  of  show- 
ing the  Arab  population  how  to 
conduct  their  own  government, 
rather  than  of  imposing  on  them 
direct  administration  by  French 
officials.  The  reports  from  the 
French  Government  since  that 
time  show  that  there  has  been  a 
definite  movement  in  the  direction 
of  allowing  the  Arabs  not  only  to 
administer  the  country  themselves 
but  to  work  out  for  themselves 
the  whole  constitutional  basis  for 
the  future  administration  of  the 
territory.  That  is  very  definitely 
brought  out  in  the  last  report  of 
the  Commission  to  the  Council, 
where  it  is  said:  “The  Commis- 
sion. . . . notes  that  the  framiing 
of  the  Organic  Law  has  been  de- 
layed in  order  that  the  Syrian  and 
Lebanese  authorities  may  them- 
selves have  an  opportunity  to 
work  out  the  constitutional  or- 
ganization of  the  country.” 

Positive  Achievements  in  the  Interests 
of  Native  Welfare 

In  addition  to  ivhat  may  be 
called  the  negative  work  of  the 
mandates  system,  the  way  in 
which  it  has  tended  to  obviate  the 
objectionable  features  of  imperial- 
ism, there  is  also  its  positive  side, 

126] 


and  in  ,this  respect  it  has  been 
useful  in  working  out  problems 
in  a way  which  the  framers  of 
the  Covenant  perhaps  did  not  fully 
contemplate.  The  evolution  of 
the  mandates  system  is  compar- 
able to  that  of  the  League  itself. 
The  Covenant  deals  mainly  with 
negative  work,  work  for  the  pre- 
vention of  war  and  to  obviate  the 
evils  of  the  past,  but  the  bulk  of 
the  work  of  the  League  today  is 
not  in  that  field;  it  is  positive 
work  of  international  co-operation 
in  social,  health,  economic,  finan- 
cial and  transit  matters.  So  also 
in  the  operation  of  the  mandates 
system  we  find  that  it  acts  not 
only  as  a check  to  imperialistic 
tendencies  but  as  a positive  force 
to  improve  conditions  in  the  in- 
terests of  the  natives.  In  almost 
every  report  of  the  Commission, 
for  instance,  there  are  several  ob- 
servations concerning  public 
health;  and  the  Commission  dis- 
plays great  interest  in  problems  of 
native  administration  and  the  eco- 
nomic welfare  of  the  inhabitants. 
A detailed  examination  on  public 
finance  always  takes  place,  to  see 
whether  the  budgets  of  the  terri- 
tory are  in  proper  condition  and 
whether  its  finances  are  being 
administered  by  the  Mandatory 
Power  in  the  interests  of  the  ter- 
ritory. A great  deal  of  attention 
is  paid  to  the  civilizing  work  done 
by  missions  and  to  the  education- 
al opportunities  offered  to  the  na- 
tives, as  well  as  to  the  guarantees 

[27} 


given  to  them  so  that  they  may 
not  be  deprived  of  their  land. 

I would  like  to  give  a few  illus- 
trations of  what  has  been  done 
in  this  field.  For  instance,  in  the 
budget  of  the  territory  of  Ruanda- 
Urundi  under  Belgian  mandate  in 
East  Africa,  in  1924  there  is  a 
heading  “Extension  of  the  Medi- 
cal Service  at  the  request  of  the 
Permanent  Mandates  Commis- 
sion, salaries  for  doctors,  etc. 
300,000  francs.”  That  is  a direct 
recognition  by  the  Mandatory 
Power  of  a recommendation  made 
the  preceding  year  by  the  Man- 
dates Commission  concerning  the 
lack  of  sufficient  public  health  fa- 
cilities in  that  small  but  densely- 
populated  territory. 

On  the  question  of  public 
finance,  the  following  extract  from 
the  report  adopted  by  the  Com- 
mission on  the  administration  of 
Western  Samoa  for  1925-6  is  typ- 
ical : “The  Commission  would  ap- 
preciate such  data  concerning  the 
wealth  and  cost  of  living  of  the 
average  native  as  would  enable  it 
to  form  a considered  opinion  on 
the  burden  of  taxation  imposed  on 
him.”  Similar  evidence  of  the 
positive  work  of  the  Commission 
in  seeing  that  the  burden  of  tax- 
ation is  properly  shared  by  the 
white  and  colored  populations 
will  be  found  in  its  latest  obser- 
vations on  Tanganyika. 

In  this  connection  one  of  the 
most  interesting  records  of  the 
whole  work  of  the  Commission  is 


[28] 


contained  in  the  report  on  its 
Tenth  Session  when  for  the  first 
time  the  administration  of  Iraq 
was  examined  and  at  which  the 
policy  followed  by  the  British 
Government  was  set  forth  by  its 
accredited  representative  as  fol- 
lows: “Iraq  government  for  the 
Iraqi  and  by  the  Iraqi,  helped  by 
small  numbers  of  British  advisers 
and  inspectors.”  The  Commis- 
sion says:  “This  statement  made 
by  the  accredited  representative’*' 
could  not  but  make  a favorable 
impression  on  the  Commission.” 

Some  Conclusions 

I have  tried  to  bring  out  the 
negative  work  of  the  Commission 
in  preventing  the  recurrence  of 
some  of  the  objectionable  fea- 
tures of  imperialism,  and  also  its 
positive  work  in  stimulating  the 
Mandatory  Powers  to  adopt  the 
highest  possible  standards  in  car- 
rying out  the  provision  of  the 
mandates  to  the  effect  that  they 
shall  promote  to  the  utmost  the 
material  and  moral  well-being  and 
social  progress  of  the  inhabitants. 
I have  sketched  very  briefly  the 
procedure  of  international  super- 
vision exercised  by  the  League  of 
Nations  especially  through  the 
Mandates  Commission.  None  of 
us  who  are  intimately  familiar 
with  the  operation  of  the-  system 
would  contend  that  it  is  perfect. 

* Which  is  not  quoted  in  full  in  this  paper. 

[29] 


A great  many  proposals  for  its 
revision  have  been  made,  officially 
and  unofficially.  It  has  been  sug- 
gested, for  instance,  that  petition- 
ers whose  written  complaints  are 
now  received  by  the  Commission 
might  be  allowed  to  appear  and 
give  oral  evidence,  also  that  a 
more  rigid  list  of  questions  than 
those  contained  in  the  Question- 
naires of  1921  might  be  used  by 
the  Mandatory  Powers  in  order 
that  the  information  given  to  the 
League  each  year  might  be  more 
complete,  and  again  that  it  might 
be  well  for  the  Mandates  Com- 
mission to  visit  mandated  terri- 
tories to  secure  for  themselves  a 
more  intimate  knowledge  of  con- 
ditions in  the  different  territories. 
Some  of  these  proposals  have  al- 
ready been  rejected  by  the  com- 
petent League  authorities,  and 
whether  any  of  them  will  be  ac- 
cepted, and  to  what  extent  the 
mandates  system  will  have  to  be 
altered  in  the  future,  it  is  impos- 
sible to  say.  The  fact  that  these 
points  are  coming  up,  however, 
shows  that  the  situation  is  still  in 
the  pioneering  stage  and  has  not 
become  irretrievably  bureaucratic 
and  iron-clad. 

Although  there  may  be  objec- 
tions to  certain  aspects  of  the  sys- 
tem as  it  stands  foday,  it  does 
seem  to  me  there  is  general  agree- 
ment on  the  value  of  certain  of 
its  features.  In  the  first  place,  I 
think  it  is  true  to  say  that  the 
mandates  system  has  definitely 

[30] 


countered  the  principal  objections 
raised  against  imperialism  and  is 
a safeguard  against  the  abuses 
which  sometimes  accompanied  the 
exploitation  of  backward  areas 
during  the  last  half  of  the  Nine- 
teenth century.  It  may  be  asked, 
however,  why  if  that  is  true  the 
great  Powers  still  want  mandates 
or  are  willing  to  accept  mandate 
responsibility. 

I wonder  whether  this  desire 
for  mandates  means  that  certain 
of  the  old  features  of  imperialism 
— the  right  to  impose  preferential 
tariffs,  to  the  exclusive  exploita- 
tion of  raw  materials,  to  unlimited 
sovereignty  and  the  right  to  use 
backward  areas  as  an  outlet  for 
surplus  population — are  of  practi- 
cally no  value  after  all,  and  that, 
therefore,  the  imposition  of  the 
mandates  system  has  not  proved 
so  detrimental  to  the  national  in- 
terests of  the  Trustee  Powers  as 
is  commonly  supposed.  This  is 
a larger  problem  than  we  can  at- 
tempt to  discuss  today  but  a very 
fascinating  one  indeed,  and  I 
would  refer  those  interested  in  it 
to  “Imperialism  and  World  Poli- 
tics” by  Prof.  Parker  T.  Moon  of 
Columbia  University. 

In  the  second  place  the  man- 
dates system  through  the  very  full 
reports  published  annually  by  the 
Mandatory  Powers  (which  may 
be  contrasted  with  the  non-exist- 
ence or  with  the  briefer  or  more 
irregular  appearance  of  reports  on 
colonies  and  protectorates),  and 
[31] 


the  Minutes  of  the  Mandates 
Commission,  is  constantly  making 
more  and  more  knowledge  avail- 
able concerning  the  conditions  of 
life  among  native  peoples,  and  the 
problems  attendant  upon  the  ad- 
ministration of  the  districts  they 
inhabit. 

Thirdly,  the  mandates  system 
has  set  up  a definite  and  high 
standard  of  colonial  administra- 
tion which  will  almost  inevitably 
be  used  as  a standard  by  which  to 
judge  all  other  efforts  to  govern 
so-called  backward  areas.  The 
mere  setting  up  of  such  a standard 
is  a great  step  in  advance.  In  ad- 
dition the  mandates  system  pro- 
vides a method  of  checking,  lim- 
iting and  remedying  abuses  which 
might  not  be  so  effectively  dealt 
with  otherwise.  It  also  does  posi- 
tive work  by  encouraging  Man- 
datory Powers  to  the  highest 
achievement  by  giving  them  an 
opportunity,  through  the  Man- 
dates Commission,  the  Council 
and  the  Assembly,  to  let  the  world 
know  what  they  have  done  in  the 
interests  of  the  natives,  in  public 
health  work,  education  and  the 
building  up  of  self-government  in 
these  territories. 

Fourthly,  the  mandates  system 
constitutes  in  the  broad  sense  a 
court  of  appeal  for  the  natives  and 
those  interested  in  their  welfare 
in  other  parts  of  the  world  against 
the  administrative  authority  it- 
self; fifthly,  it  affords  a certain 
amount  of  protection  to  the  Man- 

C32} 


datory  Powers  against  unjust  crit- 
icism of  their  administration,  and 
thus  helps  to  strengthen  their  po- 
sition by  giving  them  the  support 
of  an  impartial  board  of  inquiry, 
and  finally,  it  places  the  Powers 
who  have  accepted  as  trustees  the 
duty  of  guiding  the  evolution  of 
more  primitive  peoples  in  a posi- 
tion of  responsibility  to  the  na- 
tions of  the  world  as  a whole,  and 
at  the  same  time  insures  for  them 
the  collaboration  of  the  forces  at 
the  disposal  of  the  League. 

These  are  six  points  which  oc- 
cur to  me  as  illustrating  in  the 
abstract  some  of  the  advantages 
of  the  mandates  system.  Perhaps 
the  situation  would  be  even  clear- 
er if  we  were  to  think  for  a mo- 
ment in  the  concrete.  Compare, 
for  instance,  Portuguese  Africa, 
with  its  preferential  tariffs,  with 
French  Cameroons,  where  they 
are  prohibited  and  where  the  door 
for  trade  and  commerce  is  open 
on  equal  terms  to  all  nations;  or 
the  situation  in  Syria  and  the  very 
rigid  examination  of  the  adminis- 
tration of  that  area  while  the  in- 
surrection was  in  progress  with 
the  situation  in  the  Philippines, 
where  at  times  the  American  au- 
thorities have  been  under  fire  for 
their  practices  and  their  methods, 
and  where  it  would  be  impossible 
for  the  administration  of  the  ter- 
ritory or  for  the  authorities  in 
Washington,  who  are  responsible, 
to  be  in  any  way  subject  to  super- 
vision by  an  international  board  of 

[33] 


experts  such  as  the  Mandates 
Commission  of  the  League,  I be- 
lieve that  if  we  look  in  some  such 
way  not  only  at  the  theoretical 
but  at  the  practical  differences 
between  the  government  of  man- 
dated and  non-mandated  terri- 
tories we  will  have  a clear  picture 
of  what  the  mandates  system 
really  is. 


This  pamphlet  contains  material 
of  value  and  inspiration  to  all  who 
are  interested  in  international  rela- 
tions today.  When  you  have  fin- 
ished reading  it,  pass  it  along  to  a 
friend,  with  the  request  that  the 
recipient  do  likewise. 


[34] 


